July 6, 2009

An interesting poll was conducted in the beginning of 2009 to see what America's average populace thinks about evolution. The results were surprising to me and very encouraging. The report about the survey stated:

According to the poll, Democrats (82%) and liberals (86%) are even more likely than Republicans (73%) and conservatives (72%) to support the academic freedom of teachers and students to discuss the “strengths and weaknesses of evolution.”

The poll also shows a dramatic 9-point increase over 2006 in the percentage of likely voters who agree that “Biology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it.” Support for that position has jumped to 78%, up from 69% in 2006. The percentage of likely voters who favor teaching only the evidence for evolution suffered a corresponding decline of 7 points, from 21% in 2006 to just over 14% this year.

“Clearly, the Darwin-only crowd is losing public support,” said Dr. John West, Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute, “There seems to be a backlash against the strong-arm tactics that have been used in recent years to censor and intimidate scientists, teachers, and students who raise criticisms of Darwin.”

Here is how the Poll was conducted:

QUESTION: I am going to read you two statements about Biology teachers teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution. Please tell me which statement comes closest to your own point of view—Statement A or Statement B?

Statement A: Biology teachers should teach only Darwin’s theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it.

Statement B: Biology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it.

Statement A 14%Statement B 78%Neither 5%Other/Not sure 2%

So apparently Atheists, which represent about one percent (1%) of the population, has influenced 14% of the population to believe their religious dogma.

Which still is an accomplishment but understandable with the backing of the media and secular scientists influence. We need to gain that 14% back so the atheistic scientific elite do not "convert" the minds of our nation.

Some States are doing the right thing. In the news, the Texas Board of Education chose science over dogma and adopted science standards improving on the old "strengths and weaknesses" language by requiring students to “critique” and examine “all sides of scientific evidence.” In addition, the Board—for the first time— specifically required high school students to “analyze and evaluate” the evidence for major evolutionary concepts such as common ancestry, natural selection, and mutations.

The new science standards mark a significant victory for scientists and educators in favor of teaching the scientific evidence for and against evolution.

All this in spite of the push, from Atheists, to declare that Intelligent Design is merely a religious doctrine. This claim is, of course, an absurd point. Even some of our founding Fathers did not believe what the Atheists are now claiming.

Jefferson did not believe that intelligent design was a religious doctrine.

In a letter to John Adams on April 11, 1823, he declared: "I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe, in its parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of its composition."

By insisting that his defense of intelligent design was made “without appeal to revelation,” Jefferson clearly was arguing that the idea had a basis other than religion. What was that basis? He went on to explain:

"The movements of the heavenly bodies, so exactly held in their course by the balance of centrifugal and centripetal forces, the structure of our earth itself, with its distribution of lands, waters and atmosphere, animal and vegetable bodies, examined in all their minutest particles, insects mere atoms of life, yet as perfectly organised as man or mammoth, the mineral substances, their generation and uses, it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is, in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a fabricator of all things from matter and motion, their preserver and regulator while permitted to exist in their present forms, and their regenerator into new and other forms."

In sum, Jefferson believed that empirical data from nature itself proved intelligent design by showing the natural world’s intricate organization from the level of plants and insects all the way up to the revolution of the planets. (Evolution News)

UPDATE: Speaking of Surveys apparently God is making a difference in the lives of the Hispanics. Hispanics are becoming more protestant, and believing that a person can earn their way to Heaven is also down. Glory to Christ.

"“Clearly, the Darwin-only crowd is losing public support,” said Dr. John West, Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute,...."

He's been saying that through every poll and study that shows the contrary over the last 15 years.I am sure that you have noticed that WorldNetdaily announces the demise of evolution just about every week.

By the way, Creationism and ID are not, repeat, are not scientific evidence, and is not a competing scientific theory, which cancels out ninety nine percent of the intention of this post.

Pay attention Dan,Complaining that you do not think a scientific theory has merit, does not a competing scientific theory, make. Got it?

It is not the Atheists that are moving the numbers,it is mainstream American Christians.

You are their "red haired little cousin," as they say.

Your fundie worldview is analogous to the retarded kid that comes to the family reunion, and all the other kids (mainstream Cristians) are required to spend a little time with you, but the other kids don't like it too much.

Jefferson was not a scientist, but was a deist. I'm not surprised he felt that way. That does not make his impression any more correct than any other person with a religious belief.

ere are a few more things Jefferson said:

"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies." Thomas Jefferson

"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man." Thomas Jefferson

DO you feel his opinion is as valid for these points too?

I suggest you also look at multiple resources and previous polls to see what this Zogby poll really says. Let me break it down for you to make it easy to understand.

2009 Zogby Poll"When asked if life developed “through an unguided process of random mutations and natural selection,” a standard definition of Darwinism, only 33 percent of respondents said they agreed with the statement. But 52 percent agreed that “the development of life was guided by intelligent design.”

So thats:33% for Darwin only52% for Darwin w/ID too.

2006 Zogby poll

"69 percent of Americans support the presentation of Intelligent Design, with 21 percent believing only Darwin’s theory of evolution should be part of a high school’s curriculum."

so thats 21% for Darwin Only69% for Darwin w/ID to.

Lets see what 2001 says:15% say Biology teachers should teach only Darwin’s theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it. 71%say Biology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it.

So thats:15% for Darwin Only71% for Darwin w/evidence against it too (ID/Creationism in disguise).

Hmm, people are getting the message. ID is not science and should not be taught in schools. The numbers tell it all.

Personally I wouldn't take the results from a single poll of 1,053 people too seriously though. Also, did you really read these polls? They are are worded poorly and can be interpreted differently by each person.

Personally I wouldn't take the results from a single poll of 1,053 people too seriously though.

And with that statement you just showed that you do not understand anything about statistical analysis. The probability samples create mathematically sound statistical inferences about a larger target population.

The Quest for Right: A Creationist Attack on Quantum Mechanics. Here's a different take on creationism/ID: The Quest for Right, a multi-volume series on science, attacks Darwinism indirectly, by attacking quantum mechanics. A more sophisticated way to argue against Darwin is certainly to argue against modern physics. Without modern physics, you lose astrophysics too, which enables the author to make the case for YEC [young earth creationism]. The author goes on to prove that things like red supergiant stars and X-ray pulsars don't really exist, except in the imagination of scientists. More at questforright.com

Dan, You must have missed the rest of my post. When a poll are from a single polling source that that used very poorly constructed set of questions, I don't take the poll very seriously.

My point was that you should look at other polls and see their questions and results.

Anyway, why are you fighting to support the results? The results show an decreasing support for ID and increasing support for the ToE only in the class room. I can't see how this is good news for you!

As for other polls, the Gallup poll shows different figures but does agree with the increase in support for Toe Alone and decline in support for ID.

Best of all,the poll shows that as of 2008 50% believe that ToE. Though some believe god pulled the strings, they believe he did it through 'human beings developing over millions of years from less advanced forms of life .' - AKA Evilution!

You see Dan, if you look at a variety of polls from different polling sources, with a different approach to the same topic, the picture becomes much more clear.

The criticism of the wording of the poll seems to have merit. However your statement did suggest that you consider 1053 people to be an inadequate sample and that that alone would be sufficient to disiss the poll. The sample size was sufficient to bring the margin of error down to 3 percent, standard for polls, on the assumption that the sample was random and that there were no irregularities. It looks to me that Dan attacked your argument at its weakest link. And, yes, that looks like it was really part of your argument, rather than a snarky add-on.

Pvblivs, I'm apologize if in my haste I was no clear with my comment. At no time did I say that the sample size made the results invalid. I meant that I do not take an argument based on the results of a single poll very seriously.

My post was meant to point out that Dan's relying only one particular sources results is not an impressive argument, anymore than one particular labs set of results from an experiment. Often when a poll is vague a person assumes the questions apply to their interpretation of them, when those using the results might see the same questions very differently.

If you look at other sources you will see some like results, but where the questions were more clear an concise for those answering. The opinions of those who participated in those polls are also unequivocal and thus not as easily misinterpreted or spin doctored. Since it may not be easy to eliminate all possible bias in a poll, by examining the other sources it helps to paint a better picture of what the public's opinion really is.

Zogby's poll was very vague and lead to answers that could be made to appear to be favoring the biases of ID supporters. Also, as I already pointed out, if Dan had even looked at results of Zogby from previous years, he would see that the DI's conclusion that ToE only opinion was losing support and insinuating the ID was gaining support, was incorrect. Looking at other sources would further confirm this.

Pvb is right, I should of addressed the rest. So, if your data that you presented is indeed accurate, then you are gaining a foot hold on the population that is for sure. The pattern would appear to be linear and we, as Creationist, are in for a real battle. I am not worried though because just one afternoon of Christ coming will change many minds on that subject. Short of that, we don't have a fighting chance in this world. But that by no means we should jump ship or abandon our posts. We will fight until the day we stop breathing this world's air.

Dan, you said,"So, if your data that you presented is indeed accurate, then you are gaining a foot hold on the population that is for sure."

Did you read the post where I mention the Gallup poll?

2008 50% believe that ToE. Though some believe god pulled the strings, they believe he did it through 'human beings developing over millions of years from less advanced forms of life .' - AKA Evilution!

That makes 53% Dan, and the Gallup poll has been showing a consistent increase since 1982.

Though both Zogby and Gallup show an increase in confidence in ToE, I feel it would be necessary to review other polls and more details to come to an appropriate conclusion as to where we stand. Polls can be tricky since language and personal interpretation are major ingredients.

"I am not worried though because just one afternoon of Christ coming will change many minds on that subject."

If your christ made an appearance that could be witnessed by me and verified to not be trickery or a metal delusion, I might believe in him but still see evolution as his method of creating. Only where he tells me differently and explains why the overwhelming amount of evidence seems to point to the contrary, would I change my mind. Until then, I would still consider the bible a collection of bronze age views of their god and the world written by man.

"Short of that, we don't have a fighting chance in this world."

After thousands of years your god is still no better than Bigfoot, UFOs or the Lochness Monster. Many have asked for evidence and he has not given any.

Over time you will begin to realize this and understand that you don't have a fighting chance anymore than many other Christians before you who felt a piece of their dogma being worn away by science and education.

"Based mainly on the findings in the new book Already Gone, Ken presented the disturbing evidence that young people are leaving the church in droves because of the lack of biblical authority. They walk away because the church won’t stand on God’s Word."

Even Ken Ham admits that people are abandoning fundamentalism in droves.

The literal interpretation of Genisis is the cornerstone of Christain fundamentalism. It being increasingly recognized as a bankrupt, irrational cultural artifact constructed be pre-scientific cultures.

It's not the Atheists that are "winning." You are trying to "debunk" atheists when you should be spending your time on the Christian sects that have abandonded the literal interpretation of Genesis. They are the ones moving the numbers, not atheists.

Bob,They think that not liking the ToE is the "creation science" against the ToE.As you know, there is no Creation research. They merely obfuscate valid scientific research.It doesn't take a scientist though to see what the likes of Eric Hovind, Ham, et al, are doing.They admit that they will not look at any evidence that does not fit a literal bible interpretation.

Okay, so each statement assumes evidence exists, either for the ToE (as in Statement A), or against it (as in Statement B). Since the phrasing is suggestive in this regard, the respondent is naturally going to assume that evidence against the ToE exists -- scientific evidence, no less -- when it does not. Thus, the respondent who is unfamiliar with this fact is almost certain to select Statement B, and the poll shows nothing.

Also, even if a person were aware that no scientific evidence against the ToE exists, the suggestive phrase is likely even to sway some of these people in the interest of fairness and academic integrity -- that is, if scientific evidence is ever found which actually challenges the ToE, I should think it should be taught and discussed. Again, then, this poll shows nothing.

Let's put it to you the other way, Dan, and see what you say. Should the scientific evidence against young-earth creationism be taught in home school environments?

Before we wax poetic regarding perspective, however, let us not forget the implicit false dichotomy raised by the Discovery Institute. Insofar as I may agree that any extant scientific evidence against the ToE should be taught and discussed (imaginary as such evidence may now be), I do not think the biblical creation myth should be taught in its place, or even alongside it -- or even at all. Neither do I think that Native American creation myths, nor the creation myth of any other religion/culture. Only the current scientific model, and possibly some emergent models, should be taught, with special emphasis placed on the current model, and the fact that the emergent models are pure conjecture/hypothesis. Note that this inclusion of emergent models in no way endorses a teaching of so-called Intelligent Design.

So one must ask oneself, then, whether the Discovery Institute is being intentionally dishonest, or unintentionally dishonest, when they commission a poll which does not mention creationism... or did they, but did they choose not to release that information?

What do you think the results would be if they mentioned creationism in Statement C? What if they mentioned the six-literal day creation myth in Statement C, a Native American creation myth in Statement D, and one or two other creation myths in Statements E and F?

What if they altered the statements as follows:

Statement A: Educators should teach only the theories of the reigning paradigm, and the current reasons for accepting them.

Statement B: Educators should teach the theories of the reigning paradigm, but also competing theories under other paradigms, and the reasons for accepting each.

This subtle difference would likely be lost on most respondents, but if the results were authoritative, and Statement B above were the clear victor, then Astrology, Numerology, Greek Mythology, Paranormal science, Geocentrism, etc., would all be revived and required teaching -- and there wouldn't be enough time to teach students everything they actually need to know.

But, again, let's not wax poetic regarding how the question might have been phrased, or the clear dishonesty of the Discovery Institute, and let's instead ask Dan just what he's implying here.

Are you saying, Dan, that you appeal to popularity? Is that not what this poll is all about? Are the masses really your benchmark?

Of course they aren't.

We should teach what most closely reflects reality. We should teach the theories which are best supported by the evidence, and which have no scientific evidence against them. We should even teach some of the old, failed theories, where they are particularly useful, so long as we are careful to remind students that new data and theories have arisen which disprove those, but that the old ones still hold value (e.g. Newtonian mechanics).

Oh, I know. Now is the point at which you claim that the bible "most closely reflects reality," but you know that is hogwash, and you also know that you have no basis for arguing from that sort of perspective without legitimizing the exact same claim from every other religion or denomination in existence. It doesn't matter, though, and you know that, too.

Science, the pursuit of knowledge in natural interests, is the best we have, and it clearly shows that the depiction of various events in the bible is wrong. So just because a poll of elementary students shows that they all prefer to have recess all day does not mean we act in accordance with their wishes.

Your claim that there is no Creation research is disingenuous at the very least.

If funds were not an issue, the Creation scientific community would indeed be performing all the same tests with a different worldview, thus different interpretation of the data throughout the scientific community.

Ouch, no I guess not. But it goes both ways the secular scientific community, itself, is the appeal to popularity here. The data interpreted is just interpreted with the 'majority' of secular worldviews. Which itself, is not genuine research. It's biased.

Should the scientific evidence against young-earth creationism be taught in home school environments?

It already is inundated throughout our lives. We cannot avoid it, we just have to address it. In a homeschooling environment it is the opinion of the parent (teacher) that directs the opinion of the curriculum. Same with the secular professors and teachers out there. They direct the teachings with their opinions of the curriculum.

What you are saying though is that all public environments should teach only ONE opinion of the data.

You are pushing your religion Atheism in a state sponsored forum. That is biased and unconstitutional at the very least. You want a fork for that cake of yours?

"I know for a fact you have heard of the R.A.T.E. project and the ANSWERS research journal. These are merely two of the most popular organizations doing Creation research along with the ISCID, IDnet, and the ASA to name a few that are out there doing their part."

None of these have published in peer reviewed journals.The "research" papers produced by all of these together might add up to a hundred, while millions of peer reviewed papers have been published.

Oh, it's a matter of money?What about the 27 million Ham sunck into his folly.If the churches were interested in real research they have plenty of money-

Those research papers at AIG are complete nonesens. One doesn't even need a degree in biology to see that.They make totally outlandish claims with no evidence.Same goes for Ric Hovind. Total nonesense. He doesn't have a single piece of data to back up his lame assertions.

So you depend on Peer reviewed papers then? By what you said one could conclude that you trust them fanatically? This is starting to sound like Orwellian doublethink.

I don't know if you understand this but "The peer review system does not always detect fraud, plagiarism, poor quality or gross error and there is editorial reluctance to correct errors or to publish criticisms of sacred cows or 'controversial' or nonconformist views of skeptics and dissident minorities."

Your dependence on such a system is flawed and illogical, but highly understandable.

"R.A.T.E. (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth). Their 'research' efforts are aimed at discrediting modern geochronologic methods (using flawed experiments as discussed below) and replacing it with some form of miraculous isotopic behavior. So what exactly is the RATE group attempting and who is in charge of the research effort?

Point #1: Although the RATE group has undertaken a massive fund-raising effort amongst ye-creationists, none of its members has experience or training in experimental geochronology. Two members, Austin and Snelling have written a number of articles in creationist magazines, but neither has published articles using radiometric dating in the mainstream literaturea. Their IMPACT series articles, IMP326, IMP319, IMP309, IMP307, IMP301, IMP224 along with several 'technical articles' (eg. St Helen's Dacite) attempt to discredit radiometric dating based on 'anomalous' results. ****The problem is that the anomalies were all generated via experimental flaws on the part of the investigators or simply misinterpreting technical articles from peer-reviewed scientific literature.*****"http://gondwanaresearch.com/rate.htm

They don't do research. They take valid research and do a hack job on it.The RATE results have been long ago refuted.Even a layman can see the mistakes they made.

Speaking of Surveys apparently God is making a difference in the lives of the Hispanics. Hispanics are becoming more protestant, and believing that a person can earn their way to Heaven is also down. Glory to Christ.

That is just it. The proclaimed fact-checking process doesn't really happen and is merely skimmed and approved. You know "there is editorial reluctance to correct errors or to publish criticisms of sacred cows"

"That is just it. The proclaimed fact-checking process doesn't really happen and is merely skimmed and approved. You know "there is editorial reluctance to correct errors or to publish criticisms of sacred cows"

This is total hogwash.There might be some obscure facts slide but peer review is a very serious business among scientists.

When important new papers are published they not only get peer reviewd by the editors, many other scientists comb these papers for mistakes or corrections that need to be made.

As bad as you say peer review is, how much worse [is] an organization that publishes all it's [sic] own papers and has no fact-checking process.

Dan responded:

That is just it. The proclaimed fact-checking process doesn't really happen and is merely skimmed and approved. You know "there is editorial reluctance to correct errors or to publish criticisms of sacred cows"

Now, I'm confused. Are we talking about the secular peer review process, or are we talking about Answers Research Journal?

[ARJ] will be a professional peer-reviewed technical journal for the publication of interdisciplinary scientific and other relevant research from the perspective of the recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework.

Hmmm... Sounds an awful lot like no sacred cows will be harmed in this process...

Answers Research Journal will provide scientists and students the results of cutting-edge research that demonstrates the validity of the young-earth model, the global Flood, the non-evolutionary origin of “created kinds,” and other evidences that are consistent with the biblical account of origins.

Yep. Complete transparency there, eh, Dan? I wonder just how many "criticisms of sacred cows" will be published in there, don't you?

Still not convinced?

Papers can be in any relevant field of science, theology, history, or social science, but they must be from a young-earth and young-universe perspective. (emphasis added)

While you may still insist that there is a conspiracy at work to stifle the publication of creation-friendly articles, you must admit that the alleged conspiracy is nowhere explicit. The agenda of the fiendish conspirators must be determined based on a review of the papers and articles chosen for publication.

In ARJ, however, everything is clearly above-board. That is, their agenda is explicit -- no paper submitted from a perspective not in agreement with young-earth creationism will be published under any circumstances. Never mind the quality of the work, or the rigorous nature of the research, if it says 8-day creation, it will get round-filed.

For laughs, I thought I'd look at the submission requirements for a few well-known and highly regarded scientific journals, the results of which I provide below. I must admit that I was shocked to find that Dan isn't so far off the mark as I had thought.

Papers published in the journals of the American Astronomical Society (AAS) present the results of significant original research that have not been published previously. Manuscripts submitted to the journals should meet this criterion and must not be under consideration for publication elsewhere, and any manuscripts which reference "God," "Jesus," or which support a six-literal-day creation story will be dismissed, and the submitting author will be blacklisted.

In general, to be acceptable, a paper should represent an Evolution-friendly advance in understanding likely to influence thinking in the field. There should be a discernible reason why the work deserves the visibility of publication in a Nature journal rather than the best of the specialist journals, and under no circumstances will a Nature journal publish any papers which promote or grant legitimacy to Intelligent Design.

Science is interested in a wide range of manuscripts presenting original research and commentary in all areas of science. For original research, the common thread is that the work should reveal novel concepts of broad importance to the scientific community, and whenever possible any submitted manuscript should mock or insult creationist morons like Ken Ham and Dan Marvin.

As I said, I was surprised and disappointed. I humbly apologize to Dan for ever doubting the truth of his claims.

For laughs, I thought I'd look at the submission requirements for a few well-known and highly regarded scientific journals, the results of which I provide below. I must admit that I was shocked to find that Dan isn't so far off the mark as I had thought.

Stan, that can't be for real, even Science would have used "halfwit" instead of "moron".

Stan, I'm glad you brought up how Dan's appeal to popularity. I've been trying to read through the "Evolution Exposed: Deconstructing False Science" link Dan provided with this Blog post, and one of the first things they do is give a list of fallacies used in Evilutionists arguments. The 4th mentioned is, "Appeal to the People: Using the general public as a basis for proving a hypothesis, instead of relying on relevant evidence."

So dan, do you actually read the things you link to. as I read through just the fists two parts all I saw were many of the failed arguments that have been well refuted here already.

The failed arguments include but are not limited to:- ToE violates cause and effect. - ToE violates laws thermodynamics.- Many straw men- propped up.- Chemical, Stellar(Big Bang) and planetary sciences are also part of Darwin's ToE.- Survival of the fittest is circular reasoning-ToE is not a theory-Very outdated or already refuted quote mining.

I love the quote by Colin Patterson he uses. It was from a Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981. In a letter the following year, Mr Patterson mentioned how upset he was that creationists were taking his point out of context. He said,"I was putting a case for discussion, as I thought off the record,and was speaking only about systematics, a specialized field." He was upset by how Luther Sutherland had used this in an article. Patterson went on to say, "In short the article does not fairly represent my views. But even if it did, so what? The issue should be resolved by rational discussion, and not by quoting 'authorities,' which seems to be the creationists' principal mode of argument."

Though Patterson explained his point and asked that the quote mining of his comments would stop, Luther continued to circulate this misinformation.

The author spend a lot of time telling us over and over that he's going to show how flawed the scientist reasoning is and that, "Many are so important that disproving even one causes the entire theory to collapse." Its like some kind of mantra he is using to drive this into our heads and pad his failed arguments.

Dan, due to my busy schedule I have only skimmed the surface with the things I've mentioned, and I still have 5 sections to read. I will be on vacation after today and will enjoy reading the rest of it on the plane.

In the statement of faith at AIG it says, "By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."

Dan, I cant understand how you trust sources like AIG and others mentioned here, when they clearly show in their policies that they have already come to their conclusion and that any evidence, no matter how apparent or overwhelming, is wrong. I like how any future evidence or conclusions are rejected even before they even exist.

BTW, the paper you linked to showing how the peer review system is flawed and needs improvement, IS an example of self correcting that goes on in the science community.

Nobody ever claimed that science is flawless, thats why the science community understands the value of being their own worst critics.

Can we see more arguments for the existence of God in the coming blog entries? I tire of evolution. Its truth does not entail that even fundamentalist Christianity is false, and its falsity does not entail that Christianity - or even theism - is true.

This blog is called "Debunking Atheists," and although it's your right (of course) to write about what you want, you're not debunking atheists with this business at all. You're debunking evolutionists. There are theists in the evolution camp and nontheists (like Berlinski) in the anti-evolution camp. This is a red herring; let's see the real meat of debunking atheism - proofs of God!

You caught me. I haven't read the link to evolution exposed as of yet. I will try to find time also to do so.

In the statement of faith at AIG it says, "By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."

I am sure it's no great surprise but I absolutely agree with that statement and boldly stand on that guiding principle. I just know they are wrong when countering scripture, even if I cannot show it at the time. I do take in to account, however, that my understanding of scripture may be flawed also. It all depends on the claim. Old universe? A reluctant, possible. Evolution? No way!

...you're not debunking atheists with this business at all. You're debunking evolutionists.

You cannot be so naive to believe that evolution has nothing to do with an atheistic worldview can you?

Incidentally, I would enjoy it a great deal if someone would show me an atheist that believes in Creation...Please!

Also, remember what Sye said. "As far as science goes, science is dependent on the uniformity of nature, or no scientific prediction could be made. Problem is, no atheistic worldview can account for the uniformity of nature, the very foundation of science."

let's see the real meat of debunking atheism - proofs of God!

Now, bear in mind that anyone who claims science "proves" anything as "true" misunderstands the basic tenets of the scientific method.

Also, remember what Sye said. "As far as science goes, science is dependent on the uniformity of nature, or no scientific prediction could be made. Problem is, no atheistic worldview can account for the uniformity of nature, the very foundation of science."

Dan, I'm glad you bring this up. This was my point earlier. The uniformity of nature is what drives evolutionary science, NOT atheism.

We all know that eyes do not pop into existence fully formed from thin air.

Therefore, how did they get there in a way that stays within the laws of nature?

THAT'S the question evolution asks.

NOT "how did it get here without God" but "how did it get here staying within the laws of nature?"

Seriously, though, I'd guess you can tell where I "subtly" inserted anti-creationist speech into those submission criteria quotes, but you also realize that I did not alter the statements from Ham's "journal," right?

Like I said, you can claim conspiracy, but even if we grant for the moment that such a conspiracy exists, at best you are left with the fact that anti-evolution or pro-biblical-creation articles can ostensibly be accepted to any of these journals, whereas explicitly no article which challenges the literal-genesis framework will even be considered for publication in ARJ.

You quoted an article's abstract as saying, "there is editorial reluctance to correct errors or to publish criticisms of sacred cows or 'controversial' or nonconformist views of skeptics and dissident minorities," and clearly cited it as an attack on the scientific peer review process, by claiming that no anti-evolution article would be published due to this "reluctance... to publish criticisms of sacred cows."

Really? REALLY?

He who lives in a glass house oughtn't throw stones.

The major point of my admittedly humorous post was that ARJ explicitly states that it will not endure criticism of its sacred cow(s). If that's really your guidon, if that's really the flag behind which you'll rally, then you should move to North Korea or Iran, where the state-sponsored media follows the same model.

Seriously. Get out. You have a level playing field with truly scientific journals, it's just that your camp's "submissions" are non-existent, or utter trash (really, I don't think they even try), and they are outnumbered a thousand-to-one by far more worthy manuscripts.

Maybe I played this wrong, though. Perhaps I should've challenged you to denounce any journal which would explicitly deny an article which criticized a so-called "sacred cow." Would you then have unwittingly denounced ARJ? Will you now?

There are no sacred cows in real science. If a legitimate study is done, repeated, and verified, which compellingly challenges the reigning paradigm, its voice should be heard. This applies not just to the alleged anti-Christian journals you so loathe, but also to the pretentious pricks behind ARJ and the journals you so often cite in support of your claims.

I bet I can find an article published in a major journal which challenges evolution, Big Bang cosmology, or something to which you would also object, but I guarantee that you cannot find anything of the sort in ARJ, or any other pro-Christian "journal" with an explicit statement denying challenging viewpoints.

If a legitimate study is done, repeated, and verified, which compellingly challenges the reigning paradigm, its voice should be heard.

What do you think the Creation Model does? The paradigm is evolution. So you agree then ID should be discussed and welcomed in the discussions?

So you are part of the Statement B 78% crowd? A miracle in itself I would say. Now we are getting somewhere.

Incidentally Science has to be repeatable, verifiable and testable, if you don’t have those three things then it’s not science. Tell me how Macro evolution is testable, repeatable, and verifiable? Please just show me the data. I don't want something on the microscopic level either. Bacteria mutations is not the same as a crocoduck (couldn't resist).

Please show me the testable, repeatable, and verifiable data that links us to apes. Not presuppositions and data interpretation but real evidence, and keep in mind that a bucket of fossil bones are not testable evidence.

God is nature, and the intelligence behind all of creation. How is that difficult to understand. I don't have a beef with evolution because evolution is obviously true in many respects. Micro is testable and verifiable. We all see humans of different shades and shapes just like dogs and cats. But the Neo-Darwinian groups of today teach in our schools and universities that man came from apes with wild assumptions and no verifiable data. "Things take too long" is not a valid excuse for lack of said data. Show me the evidence please. Now I certainly will not claim that my presuppositions will be altered in any way but if you want to to take things seriously then you must show the evidence behind the belief that I came from some ape ancestry.

Until now, I had to contend with two plausible alternatives. One was that the quote was genuine but that it was not considered important enough to be reflected in media I consider more trustworthy -- as far as I was able to find. The other was that creationist sources invented the quote to further their cause. Both were entirely plausible. You, AC, have ruled out the second alternative. You have confirmed that the quote is genuine. The quote is quite damaging. If there is relavent context, I would like to see it. But it doesn't matter if he was speaking about only one class. One class is one class too many. That he thought it was off the record doesn't really help either. It means he didn't want the general public to know his position. Indeed, it suggests the possibility of a covert policy. It casts new light on the statement that no one with appropriate credentials disputes large scale evolution if people are denied those credentials, regardless of academic merit, if they heretically dispute or even doubt the idea.

Please show me the testable, repeatable, and verifiable data that links us to apes. Not presuppositions and data interpretation but real evidence, and keep in mind that a bucket of fossil bones are not testable evidence.

Humans and chimps share seven of the same endogenous retroviruses in the same order in the same place on their genomes. ERVs attack the genome randomly, and if they become part of the germ line cells they can ONLY be inherited: link

Humans and chimps share several transposons on their genomes in the SAME place in the SAME order. Transposons are like viruses with no coat protein, so they cannot leave the genome. They can ONLY be inherited: link

Humans, chimps, and primates all have a faulty vitamin C gene and so they must get their vitamin C from food. Guinea pigs also have a bad vit C gene. However, the mutation that renders this gene faulty is the exact same mutation in all primates, including humans, while a different mutation deactivates it in guinea pigs.

I'm sorry, Dan; somewhere in there did you admit that your accusation of refusing to criticize sacred cows was baseless, and better suited toward your own camp?

Concession, please.

What do you think the Creation Model does? The paradigm is evolution. So you agree then ID should be discussed and welcomed in the discussions?

You think the creation "model" is compelling? You think it has any repeatable, testable, or verifiable aspects to it at all?

News flash: the creation "model" was the reigning paradigm, and it was challenged and usurped by geology, evolution, and cosmology -- in that order. The universe is not "young." Period. The evidence and scientific nature of evolution is compelling. Period. Your camp refuses to even consider that it may be wrong. Period.

Yeah, I'm in "Statement B," as the question is written and with the caveats I noted in my first post on the issue, so no, that doesn't mean ID has an automatic seat at the table. It's still at the kiddie table with creationism, voodoo, and sun-worship. If you think otherwise, take me up on my challenge regarding an article in a scientific journal which criticizes a "sacred cow," versus an article in a creationist "journal" which promotes Big Bang cosmology or evolution.

I'm well aware that evolution and Big Bang cosmology are the reigning paradigms today, and I look forward to the day on which they are shown to be in error. Right now, though, they are by far the best models we've come up with, and as such I tentatively throw my hat in with them, and that fateful day has not yet come, despite all the ramblings of Ken Ham and company.

Pvblivs, from what I understand, Colins was talking about the specialized field of systematics. The point of bringing it up was for the purpose of discussion and he in no way doubt the validity of evolution. Also, he did not support the creations effort to alter science curriculum.

I wish I had more detail or could find more to better understand what the true context of his point was, but I have had no luck. The point of mentioning it though is the fact that once again, the person being quoted spoke out about how his words were taken out of context and asked that those who used this deceitful tactic would stop. Now over 20 years later, the creationist continue to promote this deceitful quote mining of many like Colins as some form of evidence in their favor.

The thing I find very sad is that not only are they being dishonest, they're also applying the logical fallacy of "Appeal to authority".

We could all get along just fine if the mentality would change the discussion from abiogenesis and Macro Evolution to a Creator Possible model (ID) and then attempt to falsify that paradigm. Contrary to popular belief, that is what is going on behind closed doors.

Micro Evolution is verifiable and provable...see that wasn't too hard. Now we just need to work on the baseless assertions (abiogenesis and Macro Evolution).

Oh and Martin, those links you provided were baseless assertions with wild assumptions. One can explain those similarities as a common Creator, not just merely common ancestry. You cannot leap that far from bodies requiring vitamin C to we come from apes. What are the facts, minus the presuppositions of no God? It's the wild leaps that we have a problem with.

Baseless? Nope. Papers have been written stating the same accusations.

So you retreat to your conspiracy "theory"?

They are indeed happening.

You mean papers are written which make baseless accusations? I believe you. Do you instead mean that papers are written which criticize the sacred cows, and for that reason alone they are rejected? Then I kindly require evidence, including any such manuscript.

Do I do the same? Probably so.

"Probably so"? Don't you mean explicitly so? I'm pretty sure I showed conclusively that of the four journals I checked, only ARJ is explicitly guilty of denying an article based solely on its conclusion. That's the concession I seek.

I can admit that I too have a sacred (Creator) paradigm.

Which makes you guilty of precisely the accusation leveled (by you) at scientific journals, and the scientific community at large. You're stuck between a rock and a hard place here, since you're guilty on the one hand of the Tu Quoque fallacy, and on the other of unfounded accusation (which is ad hominem) -- unless, that is, you have evidence to back up your allegations, in which case, you're still guilty of Tu Quoque.

So basically you are saying you believe in evolution until something better comes along? Slut much?

Wow, such uncharacteristic harshness...

Yeah, I accept evolution as an extremely well-confirmed theory which fits the data, and agrees with the timescales of various other sciences, with the expressed caveat that I understand it to be incorrect, at least in part. Does this make me a slut? Then so be it.

Before heaping libelous accusations upon me, however, I wonder just what your position is regarding the limitations of solid-state physics. Are you a d-symmetry kind of guy, or an s-symmetry kind of guy, when it comes to high-T(c) superconductivity?

...or are you a slut?

What about gravity? Are you a Newtonian kind of guy (GMm/r^2), or an Einsteinian kind of guy (General Relativity), or a Quantum kind of guy? Were transitional scientists between Newton and Einstein all sluts too?

You put your faith and trust in, and defend "something" that may, or may not, be true?

Ahh, no. I accept that the current models are incomplete, but nonetheless building toward completeness, and believe it or not, I actually hope we don't achieve completeness -- then I couldn't aspire to become a scientist, but a lowly engineer, or worse.

So the difference here is that I know our current models are incomplete and/or outright wrong, yet still far closer to reality than the nonsense from your spiel. Not only that, but I embrace the fact that there are problems, as it gives a reason to pursue more and greater knowledge.

I wonder why you don't believe the Creation Model as the "best model we've come up with" then?

First, you will have to explain all of the many anomalies which surface when we accept a given creation model -- you know, like the apparent age of the universe, distant starlight, geological columns, apparent relatedness of all species, etc. Remember: you must use the simplest explanation that supports the data, for each individual phenomenon. So saying "goddidit" is well and good for one phenomenon, but saying it for a second is a second instance -- a second explanation.

Second, you must identify which creation myth we should accept, and rule out the others also using Occam's razor -- that is, if you apply a criterion to oust one such myth, you must apply that same criterion to all such myths.

Third, when you're done, you must sift through the rubble to see what remains, and compare it with my version, which is devoid of the interaction of any god, and simply assumes static natural processes were in play.

What's that? Mine is better, according to Occam?

No way.

Okay, well, then I guess that's settled. Dan is now a theistic evolutionist, and admits that his sacred cow makes really good steak. I'll take the Filet Mignon.

--Stan

(It's funny to me that a guy who admits to having at least one surprise offspring due to his consorting with loose women, whores, or prostitutes, has the audacity to call me a slut for expecting better science to emerge.)

Oh and Martin, those links you provided were baseless assertions with wild assumptions. One can explain those similarities as a common Creator, not just merely common ancestry. You cannot leap that far from bodies requiring vitamin C to we come from apes. What are the facts, minus the presuppositions of no God?

Dan, these are molecular studies of genes, not "baseless assertions."

This is the same kind of evidence used to prove paternity. They are distinct fingerprints.

The facts, minus the presuppositions of "no God," are that we and chimps have the same ERVs in the same place on our genomes, the same transposons, and the same mutation that makes vit C non-functional.

The proof is not that "vitamin C disproves a creator" but that genetic fingerprints are shared amongst some animals and not others, and therefore are genetically related.

These fingerprints can ONLY be passed genetically.

And these aren't mere functions common to all life, like breathing or digestion, where you might be able to make a case that a creator simply used devices that work, but SPECIFIC genetic FINGERPRINTS that can ONLY be explained through common inheritance.

Obviously, the best way to convince me that a quote was taken out of context is to produce the original context. He has not done this. If anything, he has hidden the original. This does not bode well. I am quite aware of the deceptive tactics used by christians. But this is not holding up the cold light of truth. I am a little cynical. I notice the anomoly in not being able to find the true context. Now, perhaps the intended scope was limited, and perhaps he was overruled in the ultimate decision. But there is the definite air of a cover-up.

Obviously, the best way to convince me that a quote was taken out of context is to produce the original context.

Obviously, but just as obviously, this is not necessarily possible on the part of the person alleged to have made the quote. Rather, the person holding and publishing the quotation has the responsibility to provide the entirety of the document/speech from which the quote was taken, in an effort to establish veracity of context.

He has not done this.

See above.

If anything, he has hidden the original.

Whoa! Why jump to that conclusion, unless you mean to apply it to Sunderland or the creationists who use the quote? When politicians are caught in a contradiction or outright lie, they are not required to provide context, but the news media making the allegation is. This is effectively the same scenario, regardless of guilt or innocence. Patterson was recorded clandestinely, a transcription was produced, and only excerpts of that transcription are readily available. Should Patterson be as Nixon and record everything to appease your allegation bandwagon?

This does not bode well.

I agree the context-less quote seems damning, but in the interest of resolving this little dispute I simply Googled the guy's name, and found reasonably acceptable answers, even though the entire transcription was not in the results of that search.

I am quite aware of the deceptive tactics used by christians. But this is not holding up the cold light of truth.

I'd recommend reading the guy's own words on the subject before hurling accusations against his integrity, and I'd start with any of the following:

(Note: the site is poorly designed, such that a novice could easily hack the donation amount to a mere penny, and the site will allow this. I've no idea if the hack would be noticed, or if they'd take action against it -- it is a donation, after all, but if you really want the transcript, it's potentially cheap.)

If you don't want to support ARN, or just want a free and immediate version of the transcript, try here.

Now, read it and formulate an informed opinion of the matter, whatever the outcome may be (I haven't read it yet).

"Whoa! Why jump to that conclusion, unless you mean to apply it to Sunderland or the creationists who use the quote?" My thoughts, which I conveyed perhaps inadequately, were that either he has done nothing to restore the original context or that he has actively sought to have the quote buried and unknown. (I did a search based only on the quote itself and could come up only with creationist sites. That's why I considered the possibility of "he never said it at all," until you confirmed that it was not invented of whole cloth.) "I'd recommend reading the guy's own words on the subject before hurling accusations against his integrity..." It is a matter of fact that this is not holding up the cold light of truth. His integrity has nothing to do with that. If, for example, he has forgotten what he actually said, he would be unable to hold up the cold light of truth. But, him saying it was a quote mine, and them saying it was not is a he-said-she-said scenario, not cold light of truth.

But, him saying it was a quote mine, and them saying it was not is a he-said-she-said scenario, not cold light of truth.

I rather agree, but after reading his own words, rather than the words thrust upon him by unhappy cheerleaders from either side of the court, I'd say he didn't figure it would much matter what he said in way of explanation, and I suspect he's correct.

In any event, the transcript is now there for our enjoyment, whatever help or hindrance it proves to be...

Yes, I did mean to apply what I said to creationist or Sunderland. No matter what the context was, my point about appeal to authority is still correct.

I believe I have a copy of Colin's speech but it will take time to find. It took me a while last time to find this text so luckily I saved it, but lost it in my own vast pit of stuff. Unfortunately I never got around to taking the time to read through it since it seemed rather long a little confusing.

I'm flying out early this morning so it might be a while before I can find it. Once settles in at Las Vegas, I can VPN home and do a search through my vast catalog of research I've archived. If I find it, I will see if I can post it online and send a link, or I'll find the original link I found it at and post that. Hopefully we can make sense of his quote or get a little bit better idea of its context.

Thanks Stan for posting those links. The one with the full text is where I had gotten my copy from.

I downloaded it again but haven't had a chance to read it again. Though the usage of the quote, no matter what context it is, is still an appeal to authority, I will rea the entire thing whe I get a chance and see if I can put it to rest, for myself at least, if the context Colin said that differs from what Sunderland, and other quote miners, were trying to suggest.~Atomic Chimp

This isn't really on topic, but I notice that on Dan's "letterhead" it says:

"We are Christians, ministers, theologians, and apologists for the Christian faith"

What we? It's just you, Dan, unless you count the occasional xian commentator here who supports you, but in that case, you should ask them to be contributers so that your letterhead will be more accurate.

This isn't really on topic, but I notice that on Dan's "letterhead" it says:

"We are Christians, ministers, theologians, and apologists for the Christian faith"

What we? It's just you, Dan, unless you count the occasional xian commentator here who supports you, but in that case, you should ask them to be contributers so that your letterhead will be more accurate.

Talk origins is the most presuppositional evolution website on the planet. Its the same if people goes to wiki for fact finding. It just is bad research.

"Oh look someone at talk origins agree's, I must be right then"

This is how I, as a YEC, view that website. Try Trueorigins.org that talks briefly about Popper.

As many know I will read just about anything that contradicts my claims but long ago I drew the line at the blatant presuppositions and bias at talk origins. A lot of Atheists that I speak to rely heavy on them and believe it to be the gospel and that just isn't the case, many times. Dogma? Yup. Truth? Nope. Stretch a little farther then talk origins, and find better sources.

Its the same if I quote scripture to you. We can make a deal, you give me a talk origins link and I will quote the verses that counter what you claim. Deal?

Inspiration

"I've noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born." ~Ronald Reagan----"A great many of those who debunk traditional values have in the background values of their own which they believe to be immune from the debunking process." ~C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (1944)----"If sinners be damned, at least let them leap to Hell over our bodies. If they will perish, let them perish with our arms about their knees. Let no one go there unwarned and unprayed for." ~C.H. Spurgeon----”Prayer is not overcoming God's reluctance, but laying hold of His willingness.” ~Martin Luther----”Occam's razor states that one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything, however, the simple theory must be able to account for or explain what needs explaining. It's not enough to have a simpler theory if you can't account for anything. Though we shouldn't add entities beyond what's needed, we also should not subtract entities beyond what's needed.” ~Paul Manata----Until the Holy Spirit regenerates the sinner and brings him to repentance, his presuppositions will remain unaltered. And as long as the unbeliever's presuppositions are unchanged a proper acceptance and understanding of the good news of Christ's historical resurrection will be impossible. ~Dr. Bahnsen----“One of the most pernicious falsehoods ever to be almost universally accepted is that the scientific method is the only reliable way to truth” ~Professor Richard H. Bube, Stanford University----Rules of atheism"Science":

Theists will consider natural causes.Atheists will ONLY consider natural causes.

Theism posits an eternal mind followed by contingent matter.

Atheism posits matter followed by contingent minds.----"Evolution is the tinfoil hat used by atheists to keep God out of their brainwaves" ~Bevets

"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end" ~I. L. Cohen----from City of Angels

Seth: You're an excellent doctor.Maggie: How do you know?Seth: I have a feeling.Maggie: That's pretty flimsy evidence.Seth: Close your eyes. It's just for a moment.[touches her hand]Seth: What am I doing?Maggie: You're... touching me.Seth: Touch. How do you know?Maggie: Because, I feel it.Seth: You should trust that. You don't trust it enough.

"Ask the poor. They will tell you who the Christians are." ~Mahatma Gandhi

"Some want to live within the sound of church or chapel bells, I want to run a rescue shop within the yard of hell." ~C.T. Studd

"You don't have a soul, you are a soul. You have a body." ~C.S. Lewis

"Waiting is not wasting when you are waiting on the Lord. God works while we wait." ~unknown

"Since the bible defines a Christian as one who knows God, would you consider yourself to have been a Christian according to the biblical definition?" ~Thomas Bridges

Fun Quotes

Quasar: That's like saying: "look, none of the grasshoppers evolved fire-resistant skin when I put the flamethrower to them! Evolution must be false!"